User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 April 2008 to 31 May 2008
Vandalism?
What the hell is going on? I didn't vandalise the Australia page, I come from Australia! Those edits are from 'X360', that was my old account. Obviously someone has re-registered it and it is redirecting to my user-page. If you look at my contributions you can see I never edited the Australia page. Hayden120 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008
Stop trolling, OK? I don't know if stalking other people gets you off, but I wouldn't let be obvious about it, if I were you.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please, be civil --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Whirlpool's logo
Good luck with resizing it - the site's owner got his nose out of joint when I resized both the logo and the screenshot in an earlier edit. Peter1968 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I might be biased because I use whirlpool but hey look Google's logo is 240px wide. Ebay is 210px. Ars Technica is 278px. YouTube is 200px. Facebook is 200px. ninemsn is 200px. And you two get pissy over a 10% difference? seriously, lame. --BrianKJ (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Your problem
I'd strongly urge you not to take yourself so seriously. First, you can't block me because you're not an administrator. Second, I couldn't care less if I were blocked. Unlike you, Wikipedia is not my life. Third, if you contacted an administrator to try to get me blocked, I would be happy. Stalking people is not condoned here and hopefully someone would tell you that a little more clearly than I. If you're looking for someone to stalk and edit war with, I don't think you've picked the right guy.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not I am an administrator is irrelevant. You can still find yourself blocked for behaviour in breach of Wikipedia policies, such as you've demonstrated in articles, image pages and even user pages. I'm simply trying to give you some helpful advice, that is all. As for your allegations of stalking, you're being quite ridiculous. I suggest that you not take yourself so seriously. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- No. I don't think you understand. I've sent you an e-mail and we can talk about it that way.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think your real problem is that you don't understand that this man may actually believe you are stalking him via the internet. See here. 71.255.66.62 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I understand quite well. His peculiar email to me and his peculiar comments here (for example) make that quite apparent. However, that is not my problem. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Australia
Supertask and Aussielegend, please use the talk page to come to an agreement on what to use. Don't edit war back and forth. You never know - a third party might chip in with a great way forward that niether of you had thought about. Edit warring doesn't help anyone. kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please respond to me on the talk page of the Australia article.--Supertask (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, please respond to me on the talk page of the Australia article.--Supertask (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Knowhands enjoykeep/Fdgdf3
There is no doubt that Fdgdf3 is Knowhands enjoykeep. The guy has been emailing me to complain that I blocked both his accounts. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just looking into some of his past edits. Is this the same guy as User:List Expert2 and User:List Expert (who I now realise is suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Primetime)? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll have a look at it. I'm not sure if he was the contributor with the most edits, because he was just restoring an article that had been deleted previously, that had if I remember correctly over a thousand edits. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought
ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, Conman, SQL, Ned Scott and AussieLegend
I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.
TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.
I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.
But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.
I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.
Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.
I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.
Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Dirty, smelly socks
He's already been splatted. I don't know how he got around the autoblock--I'm gonna see if there's a way to get his underlying IP blocked. Blueboy96 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wouldn't you know ... we were dealing with a sock of long-term vandal Primetime, per this Checkuser request. Blueboy96 12:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because you three are tag-teaming doesn't mean you haven't broken the 3 revert rule together
My revisions have changed accordingly, your revisions have remained the same except for that last edit where you saw I consolidated a duplicate reference. My edits have been productive in improving the article, your so-called "concensus" has not been and if you would only read the flaws I noted on the talkpage, you would see why! BTW answer the question I addressed to you in the section I created for you 3 editors in particular. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I stand by what I said. And in order for edit wars and violations of the 3 revert rule to not occur you need to do what is expected of you and discuss issues on the talkpage. You have failed to do this and this is why I offered an alternative revision which you seemed to have reverted based on me as a user offering it and not the revision it was on content. The talkpage is meant for discussions on the article so use it! TeePee-20.7 (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User reported
I've reported the user in 3RR [1] Bidgee (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- AussieLegend please see User_talk:Bidgee#For_the_sake_of_clarity for an explanation as to why he has very much so broken 3RR. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi - you might like to note Removal of comments, warnings on user talk pages and Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments :-) Regards --Matilda talk 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Dramedy
Dramedy is actually a term we use in the states alot. I'm not gonna revert the thing on Scrubs, mainly because lots of folks have never heard of it, but I just wanted to letcha know... ;) Qb | your 2 cents 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your last edit there, I figured... basically, if the discussion were a straw poll, my comment would have been a "support" !vote :D Best, umrguy42 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Do you wish for me to add rollback to your account? I've been reviewing your recent reverts and saw you used the undo button. Rollback is much faster. Buzz back if you wish. Rudget (Help?) 13:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
